济南就告诉我早泄能治好吗(济南手瘾过多早泄怎么办) (今日更新中)

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – Authorities in California believe they’ve solved a 25-year-old cold case rape.The Riverside Police Department announced Friday that officers had apprehended 49-year-old Ralph Leslie Kroll in connection with the sexual assault of an 18-year-old woman in October 1995.Police say the victim was walking when she was attacked by a stranger, forced into a nearby apartment complex and assaulted.Investigative leads were exhausted and it remained a cold case until police say DNA evidence was able to identify Kroll as a suspect.After obtaining an arrest warrant for Kroll, police teamed up with the U.S. Marshals Service to locate and arrest him at his Eastvale home on Thursday. Kroll was then booked into the Robert Presley Detention Center on charges of rape by force, kidnapping, and the use of a deadly weapon by a sex offender. He's being held on a million bail.Anyone with additional information regarding this investigation and arrest should contact Detective Karla Beler at (951) 353-7138 or kbeler@riversideca.gov. 1050

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP and KGTV) — A bill that would end California's bail system and replace it with a risk assessment system is headed to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk. State Senate approved the bill with a vote of 26-12 Tuesday afternoon. If signed into law, it would make California the first state to completely end bail for suspects waiting for trial. Senators who support the bill say it would end a system that discriminates against low income people. Those in opposition argue that the measure would make communities less safe. If signed into law, the plan calls for the release of most suspects arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors within 12 hours. Those accused of serious, violent felonies wouldn't be released before their trials. Courts and California's Judicial Council would have discretion to determine whether or not to release other suspects based on the likelihood they will return to court and the danger they pose to the public.   999

Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the White House and the Justice Department on a very sensitive subject: The AT&T-Time Warner deal."The president denied the merger," Giuliani, a new member of President Trump's legal team, said in an interview with HuffPost on Friday.Giuliani was seemingly trying to defend the president against any suggestion that Michael Cohen improperly influenced the administration after the revelation that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, was paid large sums of money by AT&T and several other corporate clients."Whatever lobbying was done didn't reach the president," Giuliani said, repeating a claim he made to CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday.But then Giuliani went further, telling HuffPost's S.V. Date that "he did drain the swamp... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted."In other words: If AT&T hired Cohen to win government approval of the deal, AT&T wasted its 0,000.But the assertion that "the president denied the merger" flies in the face of everything the government has previously said about the deal."If Giuliani didn't misspeak, this is major news," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted Friday night. "It is highly unusual for the president to be involved in DOJ merger decisions."It is possible that Giuliani misspoke, or that he simply does not know what he's talking about. He was not working for Trump at the time the Justice Department was reviewing the deal. Since he began representing Trump, he has had to change the story he has been telling in public about Stormy Daniels and what Trump knew or didn't know and when about the payment Cohen made to her. And he may simply have meant "the president" as a stand-in for "the administration."But this is not the first time that there have been questions about whether politics and Trump influenced the DOJ's decision.On the day AT&T announced its bid to buy Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, then-candidate Trump said he opposed the deal. So when he took office, there were concerns within AT&T and Time Warner that he or his aides would try to block the deal.AT&T said earlier this week that it hired Cohen, in part, to gain "insights" about the Trump administration's thinking about the deal.Throughout 2017, career officials at the Justice Department's antitrust division conducted a standard review of the proposed deal.The DOJ traditionally operates with a lot of independence. But there were persistent questions about possible political interference, especially in light of the president's well-publicized disdain for both CNN and attorney general Jeff Sessions.Still, AT&T and Time Warner executives believed the deal would receive DOJ approval, much like Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal did nearly a decade ago. By October, they thought the thumbs-up was right around the corner.They were wrong. In November, the DOJ went to court to block the deal, alleging that the combination of the two companies would give AT&T too much power in the marketplace.That's when questions about Trump's hidden hand really got louder. Democratic lawmakers raised alarms. So did AT&T and Time Warner. Other critics pointed out Trump's complaints about Sessions and the DOJ. Trump had recently been quoted saying "I'm not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department," adding, "I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would LOVE to be doing, and I'm very frustrated by it."But White House aides like Kellyanne Conway insisted that the White House was not interfering.The DOJ's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, said the same thing. He denied being influenced by Trump.In an affidavit, Delrahim said "all of my decisions" about suing to block the deal "have been made on the merits, without regard to political considerations."Ahead of the trial, AT&T and Time Warner sought discovery on any relevant communications between the White House and the Justice Department. But a judge denied the request, and the companies dropped any argument that the case was motivated by politics.The Justice Department and AT&T had no immediate comment Friday night.The-CNN-Wire 4182

Retailers pulled some name brand dog food from store shelves after a euthanasia drug was found in several products."I was a little surprised, but at the same time you hear all sorts of stuff about what is and what isn't in dog food," said Sam Porach, pet owner.The FDA started an investigation after a TV station tested several cans of Gravy Train dog food and found 60 percent contained pentobarbital, a drug used to euthanize animals, found in some products."It's a tranquilizing drug that is sometimes used by veterinarians in animal shelters to reduce anxiety in animals and ultimately put them to sleep," said Jackie Bowen, the executive director of Clean Label Project.The Clean Label Project is a non-profit aimed at educating people about toxins in products, including pet food."This industry needs to do a lot more testing and be a lot more critical of the ingredients used in its products," said Bowen.The J.M. Smucker Co. owns the brands in question including Gravy Train, Kibble 'N Bits, Skippy and Ol' Roy.  The company is investigating how pentobarbital got into the supply chain."One possible way is through contaminated ingredients," Bowen said.Between recalls and reading labels, pet owners are left trying to navigate what's really safe."Try to go all natural type yah know baked treats and stuff," pet owner Ryan Searle said."I feel like there's been a pretty big movement lately on knowing what's in your dogs' food and having higher quality foods," Porach said.Smucker's said the low level of the drug found in the food does not pose a threat to pets, but admit it's not acceptable. However, the study that triggered all this started because a woman believed the food killed her dog. The Clean Label?Project has information about pentobarbital in pet food and safe products on its website.  1849

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Californians soundly rejected a costly ballot measure Tuesday that would have allowed more rent control as a way to alleviate the state's housing crisis.Proposition 10 trailed by a roughly 30-point margin with nearly 4 million votes counted.It was one of the most expensive and contentious items on the ballot, attracting more than 0 million in campaign contributions.Opponents said the measure would have lowered real estate values and further decreased the state's already limited housing supply by discouraging building. Supporters argued more rent control would protect low-income people from being priced out of their homes.The failure of the measure preserves restrictions on rent control on apartments built after 1995, single-family homes and condominiums. It also preserves rules preventing cities and counties from telling landlords what they can charge new tenants.California has a disproportionately high rate of homelessness, and nearly a third of California renters spend more than half their income on rent, according to the state's housing agency.In light of their defeat, supporters called on Gov.-Elect Gavin Newsom to freeze rent increases and pressure lawmakers to repeal the restrictions Proposition 10 sought to end."The burden to act returns to the governor and the Legislature, who should work to represent Californians, not Wall Street landlords," said Christina Livingston, one of the leaders of the Proposition 10 campaign.Newsom opposed the measure, but said he would work to address the housing crisis.The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office predicted the initiative would have lowered the value of rental properties. Economic research generally shows that rent control benefits some individual renters but it limits supply overall and raises rents because it decreases incentives to build.RELATED CONTENT 1876

来源：资阳报